$676-Million Tax Surplus

* On the front page Nov. 15, there was an article, “State Gets $676-Million Windfall in Tax Surplus.” The story states that this is the biggest burst of surplus tax revenues that California has seen since 1987 and is largely a result of taxes on personal income, sales and corporations that have generated more money than lawmakers anticipated. The story also states that experts (whoever they might be) are indicating that this surplus trend could continue and state officials are beginning to ponder a tax cut and more school funding, among other things.

It runs true to form that our elected officials in Sacramento will come up with a disbursement plan of excess funds that will certainly make them look good at reelection time. Tax cuts and schools have always been winners.

But any surplus money should go back to the local city governments whose property tax revenues were raided by the state in 1992-93 and 1993-94 to balance their own books. In our city alone, the state plundered $1.4 million. Other cities throughout the state were hit for hundreds of millions of dollars. Cities in Los Angeles County lost $120 million.

The impact at the time on local city governments was devastating. So now I say, “Cough up, Sacramento, it’s pay-back time.” Return the money you took from local governments to local governments. They will use the money wisely and for the benefit of their residents who, just incidentally, are the people of California.

GEORGE FASCHING

Councilman and Mayor, 1992-93

Arcadia

* In an article about a surplus of state revenues, you indicated that some government leaders are considering a tax refund of all or part of the windfall. Only government thinkers could come up with an idea like that at a time when the state is falling apart. Rather than return a few dollars per family, here are 10 ideas that the Legislature might ponder. Your readers can multiply this list, since our legislators have abandoned reason.

1. Give every gang member a job.

2. Develop a pilot project with a phone and a computer company to provide the Internet to 100,000 inner-city school kids.

3. Open health clinics closed in Los Angeles and other California cities.

4. Create jobs for 50,000 women who have been on welfare for more than two years.

5. Develop one of the state’s military bases due for closure as an industrial site.

6. Provide low-cost health insurance to the state’s working poor who have none.

7. Increase public transportation links in Los Angeles.

8. Earthquake-retrofit roads and bridges neglected for lack of funds.

9. Provide accessible literacy and job skills programs for school dropouts between 16 and 20 years old.

10. Improve police protection and security in the highest crime neighborhoods.

I think that 90% of the state’s residents, at every income level, would rather spend the windfall to improve conditions in the state than receive a tax refund of a few dollars.

BARBARA SALTZMAN BERCI

Los Angeles

* The Times’ editorial (Nov. 16) argues that Gov. George Deukmejian’s decision to return $1 billion to the taxpayers in 1987 was irresponsible, in retrospect, because of the $1-billion shortfall the following year. However, if the governor and the Legislature had spent the money, increasing the 1987 budget by that $1 billion, then the next year the budget would have fallen short $2 billion--the billion we now know was lacking plus the additional billion that would have been used to boost government spending. Furthermore, the governor was required to return the money under the spending limit law that was then in place. He did the right thing--especially, in retrospect.

JOEL FOX, President

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.

Los Angeles

* Simply let the money accumulate. The state will pay off maturing bonds. The total debt will be reduced. The state (the taxpayers) will save tens of millions of dollars in interest payments.

FRANK D. AMON

Los Angeles